 |
| British man stripped by thug |
Stripped naked, unable to fight back. An apt metaphor. Cameron's government is talking water cannons when they should be deploying machine guns and restoring the right to keep and bear arms.
This is not a slap at Great Britain. It’s a lament. We’re not far behind.
The End of Progressivism
Is it any wonder looters on Main Street and Wall Street are running rampant? They've lived off of government-confiscated loot for so long now, can you really blame them for cutting out the middleman?
Self-Defense: An Inalienable Right
The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting. It's for shooting people who are threatening your life, liberty and property.
When the progressive constituency turns rabid, ordinary citizens must have the means to defend themselves. The absolute right to bear arms is a logical extension of the natural rights to life, liberty and property.
Statesmen from ancient Rome to the American Revolution laid the foundation in law for the right of self-defense. America's founders were influenced by these classic philosophic teachings and the European tradition derived from them.Think we should surrender our self-defense rights to the state?
"Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself," wrote the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero.
"They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power." ( Claremont Institute)
OK, then riddle me this: Does the family of a murder victim have a legal right to sue the state for failing to use its police powers to prevent the murder?
American courts have ruled again and again that police have no duty to protect individuals from deadly assault. The only alternatives for a person in such danger are to rely on the mercy of criminals or to carry a gun illegally. No one should be forced to break the law to exercise a basic right. (Claremont Institute)Your only recourse is to your natural right of self-defense. Take that away (violate it) and you have deprived a free person of the fundamental right to life. Welcome to progressivism!
For an interesting and understandable legal discussion of the right of self-defense, see Volokh - Jim Lindgren
Related Western Hero post: Dead and Paralyzed Criminals Commit Less Crime
81 comments:
"American courts have ruled again and again that police have no duty to protect individuals from deadly assault." Can this be true? I thought this was one of the things Conservatives did feel is a constitutional right to protection. WHAT?
It's true. Think about all the murders, rapes and robberies in this country, and the police have never been held accountable for letting it happen.
I have always been a big fan of Bernard Goetz.
Whenever you get bad vibes from someone who accosts you or stalks you, by all means shoot first and ask questions later. Rather than kill assailants outright, however, I'd prefer to shoot out their kneecaps, smash their ankles, or better yet aim straight for their balls.
The argument against this is that it would mean a return to the Wild West. The metrosexuals would hardly thrive in such an atmosphere -- and wouldn't that be nice?
A return to Frontier Law might be preferable to limp-wristed PC America.
BTW, have the rioters in Britain been identified as blacks or Muslims? I have a feeling they might be, but you'll never learn it from the media.
Opening your doors to barbarians and types wholly incompatible with your way of life really is asking for trouble.
All men are not equal. Some are worse than others. There ain't no doubt about it.
Don't ever try to visit me without calling first, and scheduling an appointment, or you're liable to get a face -- or a crotch -- full of lead.
~ FreeThinke
FreeThinke,
Bernard Goetz -- now there's someone I hadn't thought of in a while.
My father (d 1998) donated to Goetz's defense fund. As my father used to say, "Goetz needs a higher caliber gun."
From the pics i saw it was blacks in the beginning FreeThinke, but you'll never hear it from the foot-kissing leftard media.
You don't need machine guns, live bullets or any such thing to whip these pieces of crap into line. No need for the airforce or the army, all you need is for cameron and his police hierarchy to grow some balls and for the leftist scum wailing over welfare cuts to shut up and let the cops loose. Then deploy water cannon, rubber bullets and what those Indian coppers use when the natives get out of line, it's called a lathi-charge. Heck it was whitey who gave it to the Indians in the first place, so no need for royalties even.
I was reading that the cops were outnumbered 5 to 1, even then it'll be a cake-walk for a disciplined and trained police unit.
Those stupid savages only have communications and numbers on their side, but they're disorganized, untrained, undisciplined and cowardly when cornered. So when they start throwing bricks and petrol bombs, you send some rubber bullets and tear gas back and with any luck you'll catch a few of them lying on the ground or unable to run away fast. Then you just take them out the back of the police station and a few slaps, yelps, numb balls and some loosened teeth later and you'll see the excitement and gusto evaporate. Then you let them go and in this case, their easy comms will help you to spread the word.
When i saw the footage of these pricks hurling bricks at cops who just stood there, i thought, why don't you take the brick and throw it back at the prick. In America they imposed a curfew, no talk of that in Britain, i guess the leadership is too stupid to think of something as simple as that. I suppose it might upset some civil liberties professor or invite a stern reprimand from a leftist journalist.
Unfortunately this is the PC-crippled west, Britain being one of the worst, too gutless, weak and stupid to do what is so obvious, so the scum will keep running amok until the law-abiding themselves grab some knives and clubs and start fighting back. Either that or they burn and pillage until they get bored and tired of it.
"When the progressive constituency turns rabid, ordinary citizens must have the means to defend themselves."
Yeah just imagine some of those business owners had the right to bear arms, they could have protected their businesses, customers and livelihood. But that goes against the progressive thinking, they'd rather shops burned down, people beaten, robbed, raped and their city burning than see people proudly defending their homes, their streets, their towns and their country.
What is presently going on with these looters in the UK is something most of us couldn't have imagined as short a time as six months ago.
Last night, three men were actually killed as they tried to defend their property from the looters -- according to the news "in a South Asian area of London." These South Asians own a lot of shops in that section.
In my view, we are seeing a surge in anarchy all over the Western world. Yes, something like what's going on in the UK could happen here in America. Remember those "teenage flash mobs"? Lots of trouble in Philadelphia these days.
Forty nine states have passed laws allowing their citizens to carry firearms. For three years violent crime has declined according to FBI data. Just like in the real old west, not the glamorized Hollywood version, an armed population brings civility to an otherwise lawless situation.
I live in a small city in the south. I can't envision looting happening here as it has in LA or London. The first looter may get a TV but the second one will become ill from lead poisoning. At my house if the thug ignores a car and two pick up trucks with retired military plates, size 15 hunting boots at the door, two barking dogs, locked doors and armed neighbors then excuse me while I rack a round in the 45.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I grew up in a time as I remember, "looters will be shot on sight"-- Does anyone recall this, or was it a dream I had.
This England thing went from a peaceful protest, to outright open free for all by those who saw the opportunity to smash and grab.
For a society to dislike guns, as in England, maybe after this, they'll think twice and act once... but I doubt it...
The bobbies are now considering using rubber bullets.... little to late for all those shop owners, don't you think?
"Letting it happen . . ."
Please tell me you see how ridiculous that sounds. You actually believe that the police should be able to stop every single crime before it happens, and if they can't that they should be somehow held accountable for "letting it happen"?
How exactly are they supposed to prevent all of these crimes? How can they just somehow know when someone is about to get waxed, and then magically appear to save the day before it happens?
Before you all continue with that line of thinking, just consider a few things. First, what's the ratio of police to civilians? Second, what would it take for police to be able to stop random murders and rapes? Third, how does this line of thinking jive with the notion of "personal responsibility"?
If you answer all of those questions honestly, then you should come to the conclusion that what you're proposing is that we have a heavily monitored police state in which all human activity is constantly monitored and controlled for the sake of "safety."
If a kid fails a class in school because he's lazy and doesn't do the work, do we blame the teacher? If a cook in a restaurant doesn't have all the necessary ingredients for a particular dish, do we blame him for not being able to cook that dish properly?
Should we blame the government for "allowing" people to get fat?
The government IS responsible for weaving the peplos and creating an atmosphere conducive to mutual prosperity. Lately (due to the ascendency of "progressive liberalism"), THAT social and cultural atmosphere has become one of ALL carrots, and NO sticks.
What this new situation doesn't account for adequately is the "Achilles" factor... the guy who despite ALL inducements to go along with the program, resists (a "nihilistic" tendency) and bucks the crowd AND its' leaders. He's the cynical Diogenes of Sinope, who tells Alexander to get out of his sun, while he masturbates in a tub outside the Agora. He's the Thersites who taunts Ajax and heaps contumely upon Agamemnon. The only thing he responds to, is the whip of necessity.
But when the leaders shield Thersites from necessity, they do him and themselves no favours.
The social safety net has become so comfortable, the Laft has lost all fear of losing it. So why work? Why not RIOT and reap the new social carrots that society will now likely rain upon the disgruntled. The riots in the 60's got us the billions flushed down the Great Society toilet, out of wedlock births soaring to over 30% today.
Irresponsibility has become better and more amply rewarded than responsibility. And THAT has become the "political" problem of our time.
The Housing bubble debacle was merely a "minor" symptom of this over-arching problem. The problem of liberalism.
The gun loons have an answer for everything. More guns.
When the gun loons deployed to try to stop the black riots in America it didn't work all that well.
Though I remember the night King as shot and James Brown was doing a concert and kept Boston from going up. No guns, go figure.
Remember this started as a peaceful protest because the stinking cops shot down an unarmed man.
Nothing to excess! Not even "liberty".
Plato, "Republic"
The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.
Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?
That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at any body who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.
When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.
And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.
Yes, he said, I know it too well.
Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.
Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?
The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy—the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.
True.
The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.
Yes, the natural order.
And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?
As we might expect.
That, however, was not, as I believe, your question—you rather desired to know what is that disorder which is generated alike in oligarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both?
Just so, he replied.
Well, I said, I meant to refer to the class of idle spendthrifts, of whom the more courageous are the leaders and the more timid the followers, the same whom we were comparing to drones, some stingless, and others having stings.
A very just comparison.
These two classes are the plagues of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the good physician and lawgiver of the State ought, like the wise bee-master, to keep them at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever coming in; and if they have anyhow found a way in, then he should have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible.
Yes, by all means, he said.
Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State.
That is true.
(cont.) And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified.
How so?
Because in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.
Very true, he said.
Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass.
What is that?
They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest.
Naturally so.
They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones.
Why, he said, there is little to be squeezed out of people who have little.
And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.
That is pretty much the case, he said.
The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.
True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.
And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?
Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.
And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?
What else can they do?
And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy?
True.
And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.
That is exactly the truth.
Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.
True.
The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
It will also be worth remembering tat the left has always warned about the creation of an underclass.
When the wealth discrepancy becomes too large it will create instability.
This is the legacy of Thatcher and Saint Ronnie Raygun and you better have a better idea than you asinine little popguns.
Ducky:
Non-violent solutions are always preferable to violent ones.
I didn't create the underclass. Their own sloth did.
And regardless. No one has the right to take another's property. If you feel so bad for them then give them all your stuff.
Jack:
You made an excellent case for the absolute right of self-defense.
It is criminal to tell a law abiding citizen she cannot own a gun. And it is doubly criminal to prosecute someone for using deadly force to protect his life and his property.
Ducky:
It is worth remembering that state-sponsored socialism has created the underclass.
We've always had poor people, but progressivism has brought us the dependent underclass. You enslaved them, you own them, you promised them, now you go feed and take care of them without the confiscatory power of the state.
Now I'm off to work. Somebody's got to pay for Ducky's progressive plantation.
I don't know why, Silver, you would parlay this tragic rioting in London and Birmingham into a pointless rant about the 2nd Amendment.
The rioting started over a shooting in the first place. In your world, the rioters would be just as armed as everyone else, and rather than rioting, which is bad enough, they'd have open warfare in the streets. How many dead bodies would you like to see?
The rioting in the UK is tragic on several levels, reminiscent of riots here in America, where the poor rise up only to destroy their own communities and future.
And then you have the ignorant gall to tie "progressivism" to the riots, when most of these rioters are of the "unentitled" class, receiving little to no state assistance at all.
These riots have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or Progressivism. They are the product of a highly stratified society and the police state that keeps the stratified parties apart. They are the direct result of conservatism. Period.
JMJ
What kept you in line as a kid? Oh sure, sometimes you just weren't inclined to do bad or stupid stuff, but more often, what kept you on the straight and narrow was the very real threat of whoopings! That's right, order maintained by fear.
Criminals no longer fear the feeble repercussions of our government. Prisoners make cell phone calls, listen to MP3s, post on their Facebook pages, play hoops, and eat extra-crunchy peanut butter any damn time they want. Big men in big suits sitting behind big desk screw millions of people out of billions of dollars and end up vacationing in the Bahamas.
There is no order because there is no fear. Actions no longer have consequences. Suck it up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducktard...The police didn't shoot an unarmed man. They RETURNED FIRE and killed a street thug who was wielding an illegal weapon. Remember pansies, handguns are illegal in England? Looky who had one!
Your gungrab didn't work, girls. It made more victims out of law abiding citizens.
If Jersey or Ducky ever extricated themselves from their mother's basement they would see the world from a more realistic point of view.
Here in Chicago we have hordes of black entitlists participating in acts of violent "wilding". It has been going on for years. We don't see it in the mainstream news, though. Do you know why these jobless, mindless thugs are so successful? WE THE PEOPLE are not legally allowed to defend ourselves in the city of Chicago!
My husband, being a peace officer, is allowed to carry anywhere in the country. Our walks on the Lakeshore are filled with a bit more ease than the average citizen. Alas! If he shoots one of the "wilding" thugs people like you would riot! Imbeciles!
Why do you people favor criminals over...say... an 80 year old couple going for a stroll?
Look at what happened at the Wisconsin State Fair! (Neither was that in the mainstream news). More unruly hordes of entitlist blacks attacking, robbing and injuring whites...and YOU are okay with that?
*shakes head*
The problem with you lefties is that you are too effeminate to function. The majority of lefty families are either being run by women (no daddy) or the "daddy is so effeminate he may as well be a girl!
Non-violent solutions are always preferable to violent ones.
Always? Joseph de Maistre, St. Petersburg Dialogues
“Who is this inexplicable being, who, when there are so many agreeable, lucrative, honest and even honourable professions to choose among, in which a man can exercise his skill or his powers, has chosen that of torturing or killing his own kind? This head, this heart, are they made like our own? Is there not something in them that is peculiar, and alien to our nature; Myself, I have no doubt about this. He is made like us externally. He is born like all of us. But he is an extraordinary being, and it needs a special decree to bring him into existence as a member of the human family – a fiat of the creative power. He is created like a law unto himself.
“Consider what he is in the opinion of mankind, and try to conceive, if you can, how he can manage to ignore or defy this opinion. Hardly has he been assigned to his proper dwelling-place, hardly has he taken possession of it, when others remove their homes elsewhere whence they can no longer see him. In the midst of this desolation, in this sort of vacuum formed round him, he lives alone with his mate and his young, who acquaint him with the sound of the human voice: without them he would hear nothing but groans. The gloomy signal is given; an abject servitor of justice knocks on his door to tell him that he is wanted; he goes; he arrives in a public square covered by a dense, trembling mob. A poisoner, a parricide, a man who has committed sacrilege is tossed to him: he seizes him, stretches him, ties him to a horizontal cross, he raises his arm; there is a horrible silence; there is no sound but that of bones cracking under the bars, and the shrieks of the victim. He unties him. He puts him on the wheel; the shattered limbs are entangled in the spokes; the head hangs down; the hair stands up, and the mouth gaping open like a furnace from time to time emits only a few bloodstained words to beg for death. He has finished. His heart is beating, but it is with joy: he congratulates himself, he says in his heart ‘Nobody quarters as well as I.’ He steps down. He holds out his bloodstained hand the justice throws him- from a distance – a few pieces of gold, which he catches through a double row of human beings standing back in horror. He sits down to table, and he eats. Then he goes to bed and sleeps. And on the next day, when he wakes, he thinks of something totally different from what he did the day before. Is he a man? Yes. God receives him in his shrines, and allows him to pray. He is not a criminal. Nevertheless no tongue dares declare that he is virtuous, that he is an honest man, that he is estimable. No moral praise seems appropriate to him, for everyone else is assumed to have relations with human beings: he has none. And yet all greatness, all power, all subordination rest on the executioner. He is the terror and the bond of human association. Remove this mysterious agent from the world, and in an instant order yields to chaos: thrones fall, society disappears. God, who has created sovereignty, has also made punishment; he has fixed the earth upon these two poles: ‘for Jehovah is master of the twin poles and upon them he maketh turn the world’ … (1 Samuel 2: 8).
Dad was the "Executioner".
Take Dad OUT of the nuclear family as the "Progressives" have, and the FEAR of him fades to nothing...
Eros has been "liberated". The "New Left" has won. Herbert Marcuse's "surplus" subliminal repression (that required to maintain a "civilization") has been "eliminated".
Thrones now topple.
Hesiod, "Theogony"
But afterwards she (Earth/Gaia) lay with Heaven and bare deep-swirling Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis and Mnemosyne and gold-crowned Phoebe and lovely Tethys. After them was born Cronos the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire.
Bunkerville, i do remember hearing that "Looters will be shot on sight"... that'd be the day. And, of course, it's fine to rob nice store owners BLIND and threaten their lives, too, but let the nice store owner fight back and the left gets their little mouths pursed and starts finger wagging. Until it's THEIR nice little store, that is.
SF, the police "let it (rape, murder, etc.) happen"? It's still their job to try to stop it, right? Not sure what you mean here, sorry.
Divine Theatre: that comment truly is divine and wonderful theatre, too; I giggled all the way through your very true words!
Z: My point is that the state, in places like Chicago, bar people from owning guns to defend themselves.
Shoot an intruder in Chicago, New York or other anti-gun places, and you will be up on charges.
The liberal answer is to call the police, but the cops can't be everywhere and obviously cannot prevent all crime.
Therefore, if we have a right to life and property, we must also have an inalienable right to self defense.
Good Day, FJ.
The ancients knew it all thousands of years ago, as your extensive quotations amply indicate, didn’t they? We seemed to have learned nothing in the intervening years but technology’s ability to mass produce widgets of highly dubious value, although western developments in Music, Art, Literature and Drama have been colossal.
A few phrases stood out as I was perusing your contributions. Among them:
“... in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.”
“ ... this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.”
“... Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?”
And then you touched on a great favorite of mine, which I repeat in a more ampliied version here:
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs. When he first appears, he is a Protector. . . In the early days of his power he is full of smiles. . . When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies . . . and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader. . . Has he not also another object . . . that they may be impoverished by taxes and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and [be] therefore less likely to conspire against him?"
~ Plato (427-347 B. C.)
But, methinks, Demosthenes may have described our current plight best in the following. How do you suppose Plato and Demosthenes knew all about the failures inherent in Marxian dialectics more than three hundred years before the birth of Christ?
"Like the diet prescribed by doctors, which neither restores the strength of the patient nor allows him to succumb, so these doles that you are now distributing, neither suffice to ensure your safety nor allow you to renounce them and try something else."
~ Demosthenes (384-322 B. C.)
I doubt if the Human Condition is soluble? I doubt if we are Fallen, as Scripture would insist, I merely think we’ve been fatally flawed since the outset.
Sooner or later -- no matter how brilliant, how noble, how creative, how constructive, how strong, how sweet-natured, unselfish and magnanimous we may be -- this sad cycle is what happens to us all:
The heart asks pleasure first
And then excuse from pain --
And then those little anodynes
That deaden suffering.
And to go to sleep --
And then if it should be --
The Will of is Inquisitor --
The liberty to die.
~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
Shakespeare’s Macbeth puts it another way:
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow
Creeps in its petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.
Ou, out, brief candle.
Life’s but a walking shadow
A poor player, who struts and frets
His hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Sadly, it seems mankind has little capacity for anything other than repeating his mistakes through countless millennia. The philosophers and poets do little but chronicle disaster in ever more beautiful and compelling forms -- and in the vast piles of intellectual and artistic excrement always favored by the masses.
~ FreeThinke
Here in Venezuela guns are illeagl. Only the police and the thugs have guns and it's very difficult to tell the two apart. the population of Venezuel is less than 30 million. In 2010 there were recorded over 16,000 gun related murders. Twice in one year someone pressed a gun to my head; once they robbed my business and the other time they robbed my car. America, don't let this happen to you!
Indeed, FreeThinke...
in deed!
...and like Cassandras, we are hopeless to change anything.
Tennyson, "Tiresias"
No power so chain'd and coupled with the curse
Of blindness and their unbelief who heard
And heard not, when I spake of famine, plague
Shrine-shattering earthquake, fire, flood, thunderbolt,
And angers of the Gods for evil done
And expiation lack'd no power on Fate
Theirs, or mine own! for when the crowd would roar
For blood, for war, whose issue was their doom,
To cast wise words among the multitude
Was fiinging fruit to lions; nor, in hours
Of civil outbreak, when I knew the twain
Would each waste each, and bring on both the yoke
Of stronger states, was mine the voice to curb
The madness of our cities and their kings.
Who ever turn'd upon his heel to hear
My warning that the tyranny of one
Was prelude to the tyranny of all?
My counsel that the tyranny of all
Led backward to the tyranny of one?
This power hath work'd no good to aught that lives
And these blind hands were useless in their wars.
O. therefore, that the unfulfill'd desire,
The grief for ever born from griefs to be
The boundless yearning of the prophet's heart
Could that stand forth, and like a statue, rear'd
To some great citizen, win all praise from all
Who past it, saying, "That was he!"
In vain!
@ Conservativesonfire -
Ska? Valle de Balas
Cuidate!
I used to blog the RCTV protests and the Constitutional ballot change issues in another blog life... Que vivan los Estudiantes!... at least, NOT the "officialista" ones. :(
God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;
though the waters thereof roar and be troubled,
though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.
.
There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved:
God shall help her, and that right early.
The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
The LORD of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our refuge.
Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.
~ Psalm 46 - Holy Bible , King James Version
Indulging in despair may be the greatest sin of all, FJ. Our purpose here is to fight for what we know is right -- even knowing we can never win and will likely die in the effort.
There are many things worse than death -- worse than racism and inequity. Pusillanimity and self-pity head the list.
~ FreeThinke
Hmmmmmm....Can THIS be true? Excerpt:
"ARAB SPRING LONDON STYLE? Media refuse to report that it’s Blacks and Muslims burning London to the ground"
SF, thanks...by "held accountable" I understood you as meaning something else.
You make perfect sense.
AOW...you're not surprised, right?
You know they're not CHristians or Jews or headlines including that would be 6" tall across the London (and NY) Times!
A Dream Lies Dead
A dream lies dead here. May you softly go
Before this place, and turn away your eyes,
Nor seek to know the look of that which dies
Importuning Life for life. Walk not in woe,
But, for a little, let your step be slow.
And, of your mercy, be not sweetly wise
With words of hope and Spring and tenderer skies.
A dream lies dead; and this all mourners know:
Whenever one drifted petal leaves the tree ––
Though white of bloom as it had been before
And proudly waitful of fecundity ––
One little loveliness can be no more;
And so must Beauty bow her imperfect head
Because a dream has joined the wistful dead!
~ Dorothy Parker (1893 - 1967)
Parker, known primarily for witty, caustic, sarcastic jibes, had a great heart and often waxed eloquently elegiac in her less-known-but-no-less-excellent work. Even though she was a socialist [even great geniuses have their blindspots] she might have written this as an affectionate memorial to Western Civilization, which has been in its death throes throughout most of our adult lives.
~ FreeThinke
Check out this link:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/arab-spring-london-style-media-refuse-to-report-that-it’s-blacks-and-muslims-burning-london-to-the-ground/
~ FreeThinke
The first deaths were reported recently,z, three Muslims trying to defend against looters. They were hit by a car and killed.
The looters are NOT Muslim but I don't expect the ladies who lunch bother reading the news.
>The liberal answer is to call the police, but the cops can't be everywhere and obviously cannot prevent all crime.
Without victims, "liberals" would have nothing to feed their dysfunction, nothing to satisfy their emotional neediness. They wouldn't be able to give themselves the illusion that they're helping people, and therefore wouldn't be able to get a false sense of self-worth. So, they manufacture victims any way they can, whether through promotion of the myths of white racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc., or through creating real victims by using thug government to confiscate property and put people on the dole or prevent people from protecting themselves from physical harm. There really is no limit to how far they are willing to sacrifice you and yours for their own gratification.
These are actions by oppressed people with a corrupt corporate controlled government.
It will happen here if people wake up but with the likes of the tea party loons buying every lie thrown their way and taught to hate average Americans just like them, it's doubtful it will happen. We will just be sheep led to our slaughter.
Ducky "The first deaths were reported recently,z, three Muslims trying to defend against looters. They were hit by a car and killed."
And I suppose that means that no Muslims were involved in looting, according to you?
"The looters are NOT Muslim but I don't expect the ladies who lunch bother reading the news."
"reading the news"...this is from you who still thinks the Republicans lost Wisconsin? :-) Can we have a link about how the looters are not Muslims? NONE, Ducky?
And, just to clear up a point, Do you not eat lunch? What's with you and that idiotic expression? I work, that forces me to EAT and PAY for it, silly me.
FT said "The metrosexuals would hardly thrive in such an atmosphere -- and wouldn't that be nice?"
I believe back then, they were called a Dandy.
AOW: "What is presently going on with these looters in the UK is something most of us couldn't have imagined as short a time as six months ago."
Au Contraire! I lived over there in the late 90's... this stuff was routine, rioting is kind of a British hobby.
I was eating dinner in a steakhouse on Leinster Square once when a riot broke out (I believe they were protesting NATO involvement in Kosovo back then).
Three Bobbies in full riot gear just blocked the door and the entire scenario played out as a sort of dinner theater on the other side of a plate glass window. I think the police calvary charge was the high point, and from there it just kind of disintegrated. By the time we were finished dinner it was over with except for the EMTs picking up the injured.
Have a look at the experience of the the law-abiding Brits on the street -
"It's absolute bedlam on the street," one resident of Clapham, interviewed on the BBC, said of Tuesday, the fourth night of rioting.
"People have been openly looting for an hour, two hours, and the police have been ineffectual. They've done nothing."
Onelia Giarratano, who was trapped in her hair salon in Clapham Junction while a mob smashed its way in and trashed it, told the BBC: "They were mocking us, (saying) 'look, look, they look scared'.
"Where is the police? I want protection. This is what they're here for . . . I'm not secure at my workplace. I'm not secure at my home place.
"Will they be there to protect us tonight? They weren't here to protect us last night."
"I was in the salon here when a brick came through the window," she told him, when he visited her rubble strewn street, "and no one was here to defend me."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/soft-policing-failed-britain/story-e6frfhqf-1226112680672
Sadly though, you won't hear any loud demands from them for the right to bear arms. Their police and government have been failing to protect them for years and years, all they know how to do is whine and call on the useless government that already failed them to not fail them again.
Funny thing is, they consider Americans who know government is largely useless at best and totalitarian at worst as the stupid ones.
leftards will never give anyone the right to bear arms, they know it's not just defending yourself against scumbags, they know it'll lead to a truly free and independent citizenry who will demand freedom and resist their collectivist agenda. True liberty, something leftards despise with every fiber of their worthless being.
If more law abiding citizens owned and carried guns, we wouldn't need so many police, and I daresay the courts wouldn't be so clogged up, nor prisons filled to overflowing, nor assailants being released early for "good behavior" behind bars.
I don't want the police to "protect me" from assault. I can do that myself.
But a policeman in every home is a leftist wet dream.
To help clear up any mystery here are the lyrics to The Ladies Who Lunch. A brilliant piece of biting satire to be sure, but very cruel. I would say it must have been nspired from Claire Booth Luce’s play The Women (1937). Mrs. Luce was accused of misogyny at the time, but vigorously denied it. At any rate, her play, while witty and endlessly amusing, portrays women as vain, shallow, predatory, unprincipled, malicious, lacking in compassion and utterly selfish with the single exception of the heroine -- a clueless victim of it all. Sondheim takes the theme several steps further. It’s a subtle, elegantly written condemnation of an entire class of people and their way of life. I’ve always suspected Sondheim was jealous of the gals he skewered so ruthlessly. Had Fate been kinder he would have been one of them. ~ FreeThinke
Heres’ to the Ladies Who Lunch
Here's to the ladies who lunch ––
Everybody laugh.
Lounging in their caftans
And planning a brunch
On their own behalf.
Off to the gym,
Then to a fitting,
Claiming they're fat.
And looking grim,
'Cause they've been sitting
Choosing a hat.
Does anyone still wear a hat?
I'll drink to that.
And here's to the girls who play smart ––
Aren't they a gas?
Rushing to their classes
In optical art,
Wishing it would pass.
Another long exhausting day,
Another thousand dollars,
A matinee, a Pinter play,
Perhaps a piece of Mahler's.
I'll drink to that.
And one for Mahler!
And here's to the girls who play wife ––
Aren't they too much?
Keeping house but clutching
A copy of LIFE,
Just to keep in touch.
The ones who follow the rules,
And meet themselves at the schools,
Too busy to know that they're fools.
Aren't they a gem?
I'll drink to them!
Let's all drink to them!
And here's to the girls who just watch ––
Aren't they the best?
When they get depressed,
It's a bottle of Scotch,
Plus a little jest.
Another chance to disapprove,
Another brilliant zinger,
Another reason not to move,
Another vodka stinger.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
I'll drink to that.
So here's to the girls on the go ––
Everybody tries.
Look into their eyes,
And you'll see what they know:
Everybody dies.
A toast to that invincible bunch,
The dinosaurs surviving the crunch.
Let's hear it for the ladies who lunch ––
Everybody rise!
Rise!
~ Stephen Sondheim - Company (1970)
The only thing I enjoy more than my guns is the feel of my cold knife against my skin.
Trestin, I hope you're including the smell of burnt gunpowder in the category "my guns." I wish they sold those car air freshener things in gunpowder scent.
In Britain, self-defence is still a valid legal defence, as is defence of a third party. It has not been outlawed. We are absolutely permitted to use reasonable force against a threat.
But what is reasonable force? A gun is, not literally, a rather blunt instrument in that it is only capable of delivering lethal force, which in many incidents would be beyond reasonable.
I reckon a gun is a poor defensive weapon, but an excellent offensive weapon. In a riot situation, in a country where gun ownership is traditionally a niche interest even prior to 20th century control legislation, the rare armed individual is not at appreciably less risk than his unarmed counterparts imo.
The "Reasonable Defense" standard is abhorrent.
It's my house. If someone breaks in and I shoot them dead, too bad for them. That's the law in Colorado.
You may find it so, but I find the alternative (arbitrary retaliation? What else could it be?) abhorrent.
It's a bit heavy on the fella who breaks in because he suspects fire or some other emergency. (I had to consider breaking into someone's house for a benign reason recently -- we had reason to suspect a medical emergency which thankfully wasn't the case).
I know it's wrong to let correlation imply causation, but I can't ignore that Colorado suffers nearly 3 times the UK's murder rate.
The rioters in Britain have been identified as blacks or Muslims, haven't they? you'll never learn it from the mainstream media.
Opening your doors to barbarians and types wholly incompatible with what-used-to-be your way of life really was asking for trouble, wasn't it?
All men are not equal. Some are worse than others. That's manifestly true.
In my state we are permitted to use deadly force on intruders. Don't ever try to visit me without calling first, and scheduling an appointment, or you're liable to get a face -- or a crotch -- full of lead.
~ FreeThinke
Jez: This is not about murder rates. It's about the right to protect life and property. Either you have it or you don't.
"Reasonable Defense" is absurd. Someone breaks in at night, I don't know if he has a knife, a gun, or if he is adept at killing with his bare hands. He's violated my property and he's earned no presumption from me that he intends me no harm.
The instance you cite, having to break in for some reason, you won't do it stealthily, but you would still be violating the person's property, so you better do it loudly and let anyone know you mean no harm. Please go here:
http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2010/07/prudence.html
Speaking of comparisons, in my small city gun ownership is high, and break-ins are low. Criminals in this town know that burglars get shot.
"This is not about murder rates."
When you advocate wide-spread ownership of an offensive weapon which takes more skill to use non-lethally than lethally, my mind jumps to murder rates. It'd be the same if you were advocating that we all carry swords. It's sensible to check whether the availability of the tool is to the frequency of the crime. NOT doing that suggests that you have been hopelessly seduced by the ideology, to the point that you will refuse to critically evaluate its costs.
'"Reasonable Defense" is absurd.'
I don't think so, otherwise nothing you can do "in self-defence" is illegal. If I break in, calling out and making it clear I was no threat, and you still shoot me, should I or my bereft have any legal recourse?
(we were, to start with, talking about street riots -- incidents which are usually outside the home.)
I believe there is a "reasonable" clause in the American legal right to kill in self-defence.
"I don't know if he has a knife, a gun, or if he is adept at killing with his bare hands."
Reasonable force takes into account what your perception of the threat believed at the time.
"break-ins are low."
Is that consolation for the higher murder rate?
Murder rates are also lower than the state average here.
You're clouding a simple logical argument with emotionalism.
Do you have a right to life and property?
If so, prosecuting you for defending it is a violation of your rights.
"You're clouding a simple logical argument with emotionalism."
I'm really not, and I hoped you knew me better than to infer that.
Can you really not see any way that your arbitrary retaliation principle could be abused? When would you want to use unreasonable force?
I'm not convinced that you are not misinterpreting reasonable force.
>I reckon a gun is a poor defensive weapon, but an excellent offensive weapon.
A gun is an excellent defensive weapon. The ideal defensive weapon is one that can be used to prevent the attacker from completing or succeeding with the attack...forever.
To a reasonable individual, "reasonable force" is whatever force is necessary to remove the threat...forever.
Jez prefers to be a victim. Worse, she prefers we ALL become victims. She would, of course, visit us in the hospital or come to our funeral unless she had a more pressing engagement.
Jez: It is not arbitrary. I have a right to life and property, therefor I have a right to defend them.
Arbitrary is me shooting people in the street for no particular reason. As I state in the link, we've forgotten how to exercise prudence.
Anything can be abused. Arguing from exceptions is a logical fallacy.
Just my 2 cents worth, but I don't believe any force is unreasonable if the purpose and extent is to stop the threat of great bodily harm or death; in any case, by any antagonist, human or not, in the home or outside of it. My home is the circle of space I occupy at any given step.
Interesting to bring up the right to sue the state for harm caused by not being allowed to carry a weapon. I was wondering that possibility towards a business in our area. Here in Wisconsin we're finally going to be allowed to carry concealed weapons legally. And in response some businesses are already posting signs saying no guns allowed. Naturally I doubt that will stop criminals; banning guns is never about stopping criminals, but rather controlling the honest people. Anyway, I wonder if there's legal recourse should something happen in one of those businesses that banned honest people from carrying. I know we could always just not frequent the business, but I'm perilously close to Madison, and their city council is actually trying to pass a rule saying no guns unless a sign says it's allowed.
Is it Montana which has the lowest break-ins in homes and one of the highest rates of gun ownership by citizens? I was just told this but forget the particulars......I guess that doesn't you much here, but the point (whether the place is right or not) is true.
I think DT clouds the argument with emotionalism.
Bastiatarian, is claiming that reasonable force is always lethal. Well, no that's not true.
Jez,
If you broke into my house to "save" me, when I hadn't specifically called for your help, you'd get shot too.
~ FreeThinke
jez..."I think DT clouds the argument with emotionalism."
I didn't know saving one's ass was an intellectual pursuit.
My friend was murdered along with four other women after being forced to pull underpants over their head they were subsequently shot in the head and left to die. She died with her cell phone in her hand after dialling 911. The police arrived to five dead women and one survivor who will never be the same.
It is vile wretches like you who forced these women to die in this manner.
Oh. I know you will claim your wittle feelings are hurt but guess what? I don't CARE about your sensitive nature!!!! It is YOUR FAULT that innocent people die like this every damn day!
What makes matters worse is the "man who killed her was a product of your War on Poverty. An entitlist wretch who was moved from New Orleans after Katrina and given shelter in Tinley Park. You see, he was "fittin' to get paid" as they like to say. For a couple hundred dollars these women died terrified and humiliated.
Choke on that, crybaby!
Dead friends trump little jez's feeling every time.
>Bastiatarian, is claiming that reasonable force is always lethal.
No. You need to read and understand the words. I wrote "'reasonable force' is whatever force is necessary to remove the threat...forever."
That means whatever permanently removes the attacker's ability to attack you again, the well-deserved death of the attacker being merely one of such means. And the most effective.
DT: I was offering you to silverfiddle an example of the emotionalism he wrongly accused me of. Thanks for the additional example.
Don't worry, you have never upset me, and I have never claimed to be upset by you. This must be one of the many things you believe about me for no reason.
Bastardian: what are you trying to say? Can you give an example of non-lethal force which would "permanently remove the attacker's ability to threaten"?
Freethinke has announced that he would kill anyone entering his home without his invitation, regardless of how clear they made their good intentions, whatever they may be. My position is, that should be illegal.
Silverfiddle: "Arguing from exceptions is a logical fallacy"
Do you mean the fallacy of accident? I'm not doing that.
Laws that do not make provision for comparatively rare but still quite frequent cases are inadequate.
It looks like you're saying that no retaliation is ever too strong, even if it's lethal, if you are defending yourself or your property. Are you really saying that?
Yes, Bastiatarian, jez would defend herself by pelting intruders with her well-read books!
Damned hippie fool.
The UK doesn't allow you to own a modern day pistol, you can't keep one in your home for protection in case a gang of rapists breaks in and you promise not take it outside. According to the Wiki, you can own a muzzle-loading one, but i'm sure you'll need a license for it. But that's like a single-shot contraption like in those old movies, i think you can also keep a single-shot rifle, like a martini-henry rifle, the empire used them back in the day when Britain was bringing civilization to African savages. Don't get me wrong, the red coats were shooting the shit out of the mighty zulu impi with them, but good grief that's technology from over a 100 years ago.
Unless you're a crack shot, you're stuffed if you miss and there's more than one attacker. The reasonable defense is just piffle, if they won't allow you to keep the easiest means to defend yourself, then you can't defend yourself. If any one of those shop owners kept an illegal gun for protection and shot one of those rioters, he/she would be up on charges because the ruling class would simply have decreed that it wasn't reasonable force.
In Australia you have to beg, grovel and everything else to get a gun license as self-defence is not a valid reason, you have to pretend to be a gun collector and/or surrounded by hungry dingoes all the time. Then they'll allow you to store it in your home in an approved gun safe, however you must store the gun without bullets, they have to be out of the gun and locked away you see. So essentially when thugs are kicking your door in promising to sodomize you at length, you're supposed to rush to your safe, fumble with your keys or security code, tell them hold off for just 3min on the sodomy guys while i get the gun and put the bullets in.
But technically yes, you can defend yourself with a gun in your home in Australia. It's just essentially useless when you need it.
There was a case a year or two ago about a woman who was being battered by her husband for years. She lived in fear of this bastard until one day she bought a gun illegally and shot him. There was another one about a woman stalked for years by some nutjob, she had to change her name, move several times across the country and live in hiding from this SOB, if she wanted to get a gun, she can't. It happens all the time and they're just hung out to dry. Another woman stalked by her ex-boyfriend, took out one of those useless restraining orders, the guy followed her one day into one of our big casinos in sydney and shot her 3 times in public. Just the other day a family's home was shot 8 or 9 times, fortunately they weren't hurt. The cops said the intended targets were the previous owners, as if that's supposed to excuse it A couple of old ladies were robbed at gun point in their home last week. The elderly in this country are sometimes beaten and bashed by armed thugs. People are stabbed, shot and everything else here and all this is illegal and none of us are allowed to carry a single thing to protect ourselves. Apparently we are far better off this way.
"I didn't know saving one's ass was an intellectual pursuit."
As you can see DT, to leftards it is. To them, those poor women you refer to, dead in a ditch are preferable than seeing them walking around with guns in their purses, they won't admit it but that's the reality of their ideology. London burned and people died thanks to their ways and still they refuse to get it. Maybe when it's in their mouth that the attackers gun is placed they'll get it, but i really doubt it. Mind you, i don't actually care whether they get it or not, what annoys me is that i have to live with the consequences of their arrogant stupidity.
I should also add that not only have you zero meaningful rights to defend yourself in the UK, their justice system will also ensure you get no justice once your home is looted and burned. Have a look at how tough and hard it's going to be for the ratbags.
One day, we took ten offenders to an indoor rock climbing centre. Each of them had a conviction for burglary — in effect, we were just improving their breaking and entering skills.
On another occasion, we drove a group to a youth club with a music studio. There they spent the morning listening to hip-hop, posing as gangsta rappers. When they got bored, they amused themselves by playing pool or being rude to the staff.
At lunchtime, the offenders gave individual orders for takeaways from a chip shop. Once the food arrived — delivered by a member of staff as though he were their butler — they fell on it like ravenous wolves, without the slightest restraint or manners, screeching foul abuse if their order was wrong. They then spent the afternoon on PlayStations or playing on Nintendo Wii games consoles.
I saw cameron waffling about the 'full force of the law' on the evening news, i had a good laugh, thanks for jokes PM, slept better last night.
What they need is a stint in Arizona under the loving care and guidance of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, unfortunately most Brits have neither the brains or the means to demand that sort of punishment.
Mark my words, there will be a few inquiries, various meetings, recommendations, condemnations, finger-wagging and more taxpayers money will be flushed away and once the media attention dies down, it'll all go back to the usual all-cultures-are-equal, beautiful-3rd-world-savages, nobodys-fault pc-piffle that brought them to this point.
If i didn't know any decent, hard-working and undeserving-of-this Brits, i'd just laugh at them.
MK..."To them, those poor women you refer to, dead in a ditch are preferable than seeing them walking around with guns in their purses..."
Yes, I had noticed the vile wretch remained unmoved by that story. So much for her trying to come off as a lover of humanity. She is a cold hearted, arrogant pig. We knew that, though.
I am certain that when she pelts her intruders with those ginormous self-help books she labors over she will attempt to aim them at a portion of her attackers anatomy that won't hurt too bad...
MK: Your comments on Cameron and Britain's justice system reminded me of an old Robin Williams stand-up routine about the bobbies not being armed: "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"
Jez: You're all over the place, so I don't know what you're doing. Banning guns because less than 1/2% of people who've ever handled on do something irresponsible with them is like banning matches because arsonists abuse them.
I am saying that when in doubt, the homeowner is right. Now, if after the shooting the police show up and the doorway is littered with dead girl scouts and cookies, the homeowner is in big trouble.
What is dead wrong is the story where a homeowner shoot an intruder and is then prosecuted because it comes out that the intruder was not armed.
That is immoral. It is absurd to require the homeowner to ascertain the exact weapon status of the perp.
Keep throwing exceptions if you want, but I will continue to go back to the logical fact that the right of self-defense must accompany the right to life and property. A person has no business on my property uninvited.
>Bastardian
Ah, how clever. You musta got yerself sum fancy book lernin' ta comupith that'un!
For future reference, "Bastarditarian" would be more in line with the aural effect of the original, and it flows so much more nicely.
>what are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say exactly what the simple, straightforward words I used mean.
>Can you give an example of non-lethal force which would "permanently remove the attacker's ability to threaten"?
Kneecapping has a proven track record, although other forms of permanent crippling will also do the trick.
If you prefer something less strenuous, how about the absolute knowledge that if you threaten my physical well-being, my property, or my liberty, you'll get two in the center of mass and one more to clear out your sinuses? That's not lethal force. It's just the knowledge that if you do something bad you'll suffer the consequences.
That's what we call a "deterrent." Bad guys have this strange tendency to avoid situations in which the likelihood of survival approaches 0%.
Remember: Your choices, your consequences. When you choose to violate my fundamental rights, you automatically choose to forfeit your own.
I concede the argument, too. It's not at ALL like a Ponzi scheme. Great vid, B.
B, sorry. It's the combination of one of those awkward touch screens, predictive text, and a hurry. I'm embarrassed by that mistake.
So to any perceived threat, it's reasonable to kill or permanently maim?
You're arguing for the individual's right to deter, which is not quite the same as his right to defend.
Silverfiddle, if I'm a bad guy and I want to bump you off with immunity from the law, all I have to do is lure you onto my property?
"You're all over the place, so I don't know what you're doing."
I wanted to talk to you about your objection to the "reasonable force" requirement for the self-defence plea. You agree that you can't kill girl scouts and cookies -- how does the law account for that without a "reasonable" clause?
DT is offering more emotionalism. I hope you can see the difference between that and what I'm contributing.
DT: Except to say this, I'm not talking to you, what would be the point? Hence no comment on your story.
I can't make it any clearer, Jez:
As I said earlier, "Reasonable force" had led to homeowners being prosecuted for shooting an unarmed intruder in their own home. That is wrong.
Are you saying that the standard of "reasonable force" is set wrongly in that case, or that "reasonable" clause should be abandoned altogether?
I have no idea Jez, I'm not a lawyer. I just know it's wrong. The property owner get the benefit of the doubt. Period.
You're missing the larger point. As a society we have lost the concept of natural rights, and that's a shame because it is the foundation of both British and US society.
Progressivism, like the verminous infestation that it is, has eaten away at that foundation. If a government prosecutes property owners for defending themselves, that gives a green light for criminals.
More insidiously, "entitlements," confiscated from one group and given to another creates a sens of surly entitlement. Imagine that!
"If a government prosecutes property owners for defending themselves, that gives a green light for criminals."
In our homes and businesses, yes....in the 'micro', but in the 'macro', too, this smacks of truth; We're not defending our borders and we are giving a green light for criminals in that way, too.
"I am certain that when she pelts her intruders with those ginormous self-help books she labors over she will attempt to aim them at a portion of her attackers anatomy that won't hurt too bad."
DT, if gun-haters are true to their preaching, they'd still be pontificating and evaluating their initial response long after the perp(s) has made off with their belongings and had his way with them. But we know they're not, if it's them alone at night they'll do whatever they need to, grab an illegal gun and blast away even, the 'reasonable force' piffle be damned. You'll notice that the politicians and ruling class in favor of gun control are safely ensconced in their ivory towers and protected by armed guards and/or elaborate security systems. It's only us riff-raff who can't afford such luxuries that they're so keen to impose their nannying ideology upon, so long as it's not their ass that's on the line, they're happy to pontificate.
"Your comments on Cameron and Britain's justice system reminded me of an old Robin Williams stand-up routine about the bobbies not being armed: "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!""
Indeed, if it wasn't such a sick joke, i'd laugh Silver.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.